Methodological variation in economic evaluations conducted in low- and middle-income countries: information for reference case development

Economic analysis of a health system strengthening program in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

INTRODUCTION

Due to the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s (DRC) precarious health system that provides only limited access to health care, the European Union, via Memisa Belgium, implemented a program to strengthen provision of and access to health care (known as PRO DS) in the provinces of Kongo Central and Ituri. This program took a holistic approach, seeking to improve equitable access and combat malnutrition.

METHODS

To measure the program’s social return on investment and to estimate the cost per capita and effectiveness per euro invested (efficiency), a 61-month (1 July 2017 to 31 July 2022) cost-effectiveness evaluation with a societal perspective was carried out. The double-difference method was used to compare the results of PRO DS and non-PRO DS zones. The social return on investment was assessed via the ratio of effectiveness to costs.

RESULTS

Analyses revealed the program cost between 3.72 and 3.96 euros per capita per year (2022) in Kongo Central, and between 3.12 and 3.36 euros in Ituri. Importantly, it was cost-effective in the areas of reproductive health, nutrition, and the use of health and nutrition services.

CONCLUSIONS

The program’s strong nutritional component and overall holistic vision may explain why it was so efficient. PRO DS stands out from other programs that focus solely on one specific problem or population. Although the program has some limitations, it would be worthwhile for the government to invest in it.

Critical Analysis of Economic Evaluation of the Childhood Rotavirus Vaccination in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To identify, critically appraise, and summarize the use of different methods and results of economic evaluations to assess the efficiency of rotavirus vaccination programs in low- and lower-middle-income countries.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in 3 bibliographic databases, including PubMed, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct (Elsevier) journal website, using key search terms. The study selection process was based on predefined inclusion criteria. The search results were presented using the research flow diagram based on guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis). The quality assessment of the selected studies was carried out using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were selected for review. All the studies, except 1, reported rotavirus vaccination to be a cost-effective intervention and a high-impact strategy to reduce substantial rotavirus disease burden. A decision analysis model was considered appropriate by all studies, although there were variabilities in the analytic horizon used. Lack of country-level data was highlighted by most studies. Multiples of gross domestic product of respective countries were used as a threshold to interpret cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Rotavirus vaccination was found to be cost-efficient in most settings, including complex humanitarian emergencies. The use of thresholds for interpreting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and lack of local-level disease incidence and cost of illness data remains a point of contention. Lack of reporting probabilistic sensitivity analysis renders limited robustness to study results.

Framework for determining the optimal course of action when efficiency and affordability measures differ by perspective in cost-effectiveness analysis-with an illustrative case of HIV treatment in Mozambique

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a standard tool for evaluating health programs and informing decisions about resource allocation and prioritization. Most CEAs evaluating health interventions in low- and middle-income countries adopt a health sector perspective, accounting for resources funded by international donors and country governments, while often excluding out-of-pocket expenditures and time costs borne by program beneficiaries. Even when patients' costs are included, a companion analysis focused on the patient perspective is rarely performed. We view this as a missed opportunity.

METHODS

We developed methods for assessing intervention affordability and evaluating whether optimal interventions from the health sector perspective also represent efficient and affordable options for patients. We mapped the five different patterns that a comparison of the perspective results can yield into a practical framework, and we provided guidance for researchers and decision-makers on how to use results from multiple perspectives. To illustrate the methodology, we conducted a CEA of six HIV treatment delivery models in Mozambique. We conducted a Monte Carlo microsimulation with probabilistic sensitivity analysis from both patient and health sector perspectives, generating incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the treatment approaches. We also calculated annualized patient costs for the treatment approaches, comparing the costs with an affordability threshold. We then compared the cost-effectiveness and affordability results from the two perspectives using the framework we developed.

RESULTS

In this case, the two perspectives did not produce a shared optimal approach for HIV treatment at the willingness-to-pay threshold of 0.3 × Mozambique's annual GDP per capita per DALY averted. However, the clinical 6-month antiretroviral drug distribution strategy, which is optimal from the health sector perspective, is efficient and affordable from the patient perspective. All treatment approaches, except clinical 1-month distributions of antiretroviral drugs which were standard before Covid-19, had an annual cost to patients less than the country's annual average for out-of-pocket health expenditures.

CONCLUSION

Including a patient perspective in CEAs and explicitly considering affordability offers decision-makers additional insights either by confirming that the optimal strategy from the health sector perspective is also efficient and affordable from the patient perspective or by identifying incongruencies in value or affordability that could affect patient participation.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Smart Triage, a data-driven pediatric sepsis triage platform in Eastern Uganda

BACKGROUND

Sepsis, characterized by organ dysfunction due to presumed or proven infection, has a case-fatality over 20% in severe cases in low-and-middle income countries. Early diagnosis and treatment have proven benefits, prompting our implementation of Smart Triage at Jinja Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda, a program that expedites treatment through a data-driven triage platform. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of Smart Triage to explore its impact on patients and inform multicenter scale up.

METHODS

The parent clinical trial for Smart Triage was pre-post in design, using the proportion of children receiving sepsis treatment within one hour as the primary outcome, a measure linked to mortality benefit in existing literature. We used a decision-analytic model with Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the cost per year-of-life-lost (YLL) averted of Smart Triage from societal, government, and patient perspectives. Healthcare utilization and lost work for seven days post-discharge were translated into costs and productivity losses via secondary linkage data.

RESULTS

In 2021 United States dollars, Smart Triage requires an annuitized program cost of only $0.05 per child, but results in $15.32 saved per YLL averted. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of only $3 per YLL averted, well below published cost-effectiveness threshold estimates for Uganda, Smart Triage approaches 100% probability of cost-effectiveness over the baseline manual triage system. This cost-effectiveness was observed from societal, government, and patient perspectives. The cost-effectiveness observed was driven by a reduction in admission that, while explainable by an improved triage mechanism, may also be partially attributable to changes in healthcare utilization influenced by the coronavirus pandemic. However, Smart Triage remains cost-effective in sensitivity analyses introducing a penalty factor of up to 50% in the reduction in admission.

CONCLUSION

Smart Triage's ability to both save costs and avert YLLs indicates that patients benefit both economically and clinically, while its high probability of cost-effectiveness strongly supports multicenter scale up. Areas for further research include the incorporation of years lived with disability when sepsis disability weights in low-resource settings become available and analyzing budget impact during multicenter scale up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04304235 (registered on 11/03/2020, clinicaltrials.gov).

Health economic evaluations for Indonesia: a systematic review assessing evidence quality and adherence to the Indonesian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Guideline

Background

The Government of Indonesia implemented health technology assessment (HTA) to ensure quality and cost control in the National Health Insurance Program (Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional/JKN). The current aim of the study was to improve the usefulness of future economic evaluation for resource allocation by appraising current methodology, reporting, and source of evidence quality of studies.

Methods

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to search for relevant studies using a systematic review. The methodology and reporting adherence were appraised according to Indonesia's HTA Guideline issued in 2017. The differences in adherence before and after the guideline dissemination were compared using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests for methodology adherence wherever appropriate, and the Mann-Whitney test for reporting adherence. The source of evidence quality was assessed using evidence hierarchy. Two scenarios of the study start date and the guideline dissemination period were tested using sensitivity analyses.

Findings

Eighty-four studies were obtained from PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and two local journals. Only two articles cited the guideline. No statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) was found between the pre-dissemination and post-dissemination period with respect to methodology adherence, except for outcome choice. Studies during the post-dissemination period showed a higher score for reporting which was statistically significant (P = 0.01). However, the sensitivity analyses revealed no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) in methodology (except for modelling type, P = 0.03) and reporting adherence between the two periods.

Interpretation

The guideline did not impact the methodology and reporting standard used in the included studies. Recommendations were provided to improve the usefulness of economic evaluations for Indonesia.

Funding

The Access and Delivery Partnership (ADP) hosted by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Health Systems Research Institute (HSRI).

A systematic review and quality appraisal of the economic evaluations of schistosomiasis interventions

BACKGROUND

Schistosomiasis is a neglected tropical disease (NTD) that affects over 230 million people in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) and can lead to long-term debilitating health effects. It is associated with impoverishment and has been prioritised by the World Health Organization for prevention, control and elimination. This systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate existing economic evaluations of interventions to tackle schistosomiasis.

METHODOLOGY

A comprehensive search strategy of four databases and additional hand-searching was employed on the 17th July 2020. The articles were screened and sorted using a two-stage classification system. Full economic evaluations published in English between 1st January 1998 and 17th July 2020 were included, and methodological quality was appraised using the international decision support initiative (iDSI), Phillips and Evers checklists.

RESULTS

Eighteen economic evaluations were identified, nine trial-based and nine model-based, with the majority focused on preventative chemotherapy. Schistosomiasis interventions were collectively found to be cost-effective, but the quantity and quality of studies were limited. The outcome measures and time-horizons utilised varied substantially making comparison difficult. The majority of papers failed to address equity and affordability.

CONCLUSION

Several methodological issues were highlighted which might have implications for optimal decision-making. Future research is needed to ensure the standardisation of methods, in order to ensure that scarce healthcare resources are focused on the most cost-effective programmes to tackle schistosomiasis and other NTDs.

How are mathematical models and results from mathematical models of vaccine-preventable diseases used, or not, by global health organisations?

While epidemiological and economic evidence has the potential to provide answers to questions, guide complex programmes and inform resource allocation decisions, how this evidence is used by global health organisations who commission it and what organisational actions are generated from the evidence remains unclear. This study applies analytical tools from organisational science to understand how evidence produced by infectious disease epidemiologists and health economists is used by global health organisations. A conceptual framework that embraces evidence use typologies and relates findings to the organisational process of action generation informs and structures the research. Between March and September 2020, we conducted in-depth interviews with mathematical modellers (evidence producers) and employees at global health organisations, who are involved in decision-making processes (evidence consumers). We found that commissioned epidemiological and economic evidence is used to track progress and provides a measure of success, both in terms of health outcomes and the organisations’ mission. Global health organisations predominantly use this evidence to demonstrate accountability and solicit funding from external partners. We find common understanding and awareness across consumers and producers about the purposes and uses of these commissioned pieces of work and how they are distinct from more academic explorative research outputs. Conceptual evidence use best describes this process. Evidence is slowly integrated into organisational processes and is one of many influences on global health organisations’ actions. Relationships developed over time and trust guide the process, which may lead to quite a concentrated cluster of those producing and commissioning models. These findings raise several insights relevant to the literature of research utilisation in organisations and evidence-based management. The study extends our understanding of how evidence is used and which organisational actions are generated as a result of commissioning epidemiological and economic evidence.

National Healthcare Economic Evaluation Guidelines: A Cross-Country Comparison

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Globally, a number of countries have developed guidelines that describe the design and conduct of economic evaluations as part of health technology assessment (HTA) or pharmacoeconomic analysis for decision making. The current scoping review was undertaken with an objective to summarize the recommendations made on methods of economic evaluation by the national healthcare economic evaluation (HEE) guidelines.

METHODOLOGY

A comprehensive search was undertaken in the website repositories of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomic and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and Guide to Economic Analysis and Research (GEAR), and websites of national HTA agencies and ministries of health of individual countries. All guidelines in the English language were included in this review. Data were extracted with respect to general and methodological characteristics, and a descriptive analysis of recommendations made across the countries was undertaken.

RESULTS

Overall, our review included 31 national HEE guidelines, published between 1997 and August 2020. Nearly half (45%) of the guidelines targeted the evaluation of pharmaceuticals. The nature of the guidelines was either mandatory (31%), recommendatory (42%), or voluntary (16%). There was a substantial consensus among the guidelines on several key principles, including type of economic evaluation (cost-utility analysis), time horizon of the analysis (long enough), health outcome measure (quality-adjusted life-years) and use of sensitivity analyses. The recommendations on study perspective, comparator, discount rate and type of costs to be included (particularly the inclusion of indirect costs) varied widely.

CONCLUSION

Despite similarity in the overall processes, variation in several recommendations given by various national HEE guidelines was observed. This is perhaps unsurprising given the differences in the health systems and financing mechanisms, capacity of local researchers, and data availability. This review offers important lessons and a starting point for countries that are planning to develop their own HEE guidelines.

Adherence to country-specific guidelines among economic evaluations undertaken in three high-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the adherence of economic evaluations to the recommendations on principles of economic evaluation as stated in the country-specific guidelines for three countries across different income groups, namely, Canada, South Africa, and Egypt.

METHODS

Searches were undertaken in three databases to identify economic evaluations meeting predefined inclusion criteria. Methodological and reporting standards listed in the country-specific guidelines were converted into discrete binary variables to calculate mean adherence scores. Quality appraisal was done using Drummond's checklist. Stratified analysis was undertaken to identify independent variables affecting adherence.

RESULTS

We identified forty-four, seventy-nine, and sixteen economic evaluations for Canada, South Africa, and Egypt, respectively. The mean adherence score was the highest for Canada (71%), followed by South Africa (65%) and Egypt (60%). Adherence to guidelines was positively correlated with quality of studies, r = .72. Furthermore, the mean adherence score was significantly (p < .05) higher for studies using a cost-utility analysis design (72%), having local/national funding aid (72%), undertaken by a health economist (71%) and for pharmacoeconomic evaluations (70%).

CONCLUSION

The quality of economic evaluations improves with adherence to country-specific guidelines. Locally funded and health-economist led health technology assessments (HTAs) should be encouraged for greater adherence to the guidelines. The HTA researchers and the HTA bodies should lay emphasis on adherence to the country-specific guidelines for improving the quality of HTA evidence.

Economics of physical activity in low-income and middle- income countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Promotion of physical activity (PA) among populations is a global health investment. However, evidence on economic aspects of PA is sparse and scattered in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to summarise the available evidence on economics of PA in LMICs, identify potential target variables for policy and report gaps in the existing economic evidence alongside research recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review of the electronic databases (Scopus, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus) and grey literature.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Cost-of-illness studies, economic evaluations, interventions and descriptive studies on economic factors associated with PA using preset eligibility criteria.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS OF METHODS

Screening, study selection and quality appraisal based on standard checklists performed by two reviewers with consensus of a third reviewer. Descriptive synthesis of data was performed.

RESULTS

The majority of the studies were from upper-middle-income countries (n=16, 88.8%) and mainly from Brazil (n=9, 50%). Only one economic evaluation study was found. The focus of the reviewed literature spanned the economic burden of physical inactivity (n=4, 22%), relationship between PA and costs (n=6, 46%) and socioeconomic determinants of PA (n=7, 39%). The findings showed a considerable economic burden due to insufficient PA, with LMICs accounting for 75% of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) globally due to insufficient PA. Socioeconomic correlates of PA were identified, and inverse relationship of PA with the cost of chronic diseases was established. Regular PA along with drug treatment as a treatment scheme for chronic diseases showed advantages with a cost-utility ratio of US$3.21/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) compared with the drug treatment-only group (US$3.92/QALY) by the only economic evaluation conducted in the LMIC, Brazil.

LIMITATIONS

Meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity of the studies.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Economic evaluation studies for PA promotion interventions/strategies and local research from low-income countries are grossly inadequate. Setting economic research agenda in LMICs ought to be prioritised in those areas.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018099856.

Adherence to the iDSI reference case among published cost-per-DALY averted studies

BACKGROUND

The iDSI reference case, originally published in 2014, aims to improve the quality and comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). This study assesses whether the development of the guideline is associated with an improvement in methodological and reporting practices for CEAs using disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs).

METHODS

We analyzed the Tufts Medical Center Global Health CEA Registry to identify cost-per-DALY averted studies published from 2011 to 2017. Among each of 11 principles in the iDSI reference case, we translated all methodological specifications and reporting standards into a series of binary questions (satisfied or not satisfied) and awarded articles one point for each item satisfied. We then calculated methodological and reporting adherence scores separately as a percentage of total possible points, measured as normalized adherence score (0% = no adherence; 100% = full adherence). Using the year 2014 as the dissemination period, we conducted a pre-post analysis. We also conducted sensitivity analyses using: 1) optional criteria in scoring, 2) alternate dissemination period (2014-2015), and 3) alternative comparator classification.

RESULTS

Articles averaged 60% adherence to methodological specifications and 74% adherence to reporting standards. While methodological adherence scores did not significantly improve (59% pre-2014 vs. 60% post-2014, p = 0.53), reporting adherence scores increased slightly over time (72% pre-2014 vs. 75% post-2014, p<0.01). Overall, reporting adherence scores exceeded methodological adherence scores (74% vs. 60%, p<0.001). Articles seldom addressed budget impact (9% reporting, 10% methodological) or equity (7% reporting, 7% methodological).

CONCLUSIONS

The iDSI reference case has substantial potential to serve as a useful resource for researchers and policy-makers in global health settings, but greater effort to promote adherence and awareness is needed to achieve its potential.

Private and social time preference for health outcomes: A general population survey in Iran

Despite the recent increase in economic evaluations of health care programs in low and middle income countries, there is still a surprising gap in evidence on the appropriate discount rate and the discounting of health outcomes such as quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Our study aimed to calculate the implied time preference rate for health outcomes in Iran and its key determinants. Data were gathered from one family member from each of the 650 households randomly selected in Tehran. The respondents’ private and social preferences for health outcomes were calculated using the time trade-off (TTO) technique based on the discounted utility model. We investigated the main assumptions of the discounted utility model through equality of mean comparison, and the association between private time preference and key socio-economic determinants using multilevel regression analysis. The mean and median implied rates were 5.8% and 4.9% for private time preference and 25.6% and 20% for social time preference respectively. Our study confirmed that magnitude, framing and time effects have a significant impact on implied discount rates, which means that the conventional discounted utility model’s main assumptions are violated in the Iranian general population. Other models of discounting which apply lower rates for far health outcomes might provide a more sensible solution to discounting health interventions with long-term impacts.

The economics of physical activity in low-income and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Evidence on the economic costs of physical inactivity and the cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is sparse, and fragmented where they are available. This is the first review aimed to summarise available evidence on economics of physical activity in LMICs, identify potential target variables for policy, and identify and report gaps in the current knowledge on economics of physical activity in LMICs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Peer-reviewed journal articles of observational, experimental, quasi-experimental and mixed-method studies on economics of physical activity in LMICs will be identified by a search of electronic databases; Scopus, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus. Websites of WHO, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence international, World Bank and reference lists of included studies will be searched for relevant studies. The study selection process will be a two-stage approach; title and abstract screen for inclusion, followed by a review of selected full-text articles by two independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus and discussion with a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using standardised piloted data extraction forms. Risk of bias will be critically appraised using standard checklists based on study designs. Descriptive synthesis of data is planned. Where relevant, summaries of studies will be classified according to type of economic analysis, country or country category, population, intervention, comparator, outcome and study design. Meta-analysis will be performed where appropriate. This protocol for systematic review is prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis for Protocols -2015 statement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not obtained as original data will not be collected as part of this review. The completed review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018099856.

Economic Evaluation for Health Investments En Route to Universal Health Coverage: Cost-Benefit Analysis or Cost-Effectiveness Analysis?

BACKGROUND

It is an unresolved issue as to whether cost-benefit analysis (CBA) or cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is the preferable analytical toolkit for use in health technology assessment (HTA). The distinction between the two and an expressed preference for CEA go back at least to 1980 in the USA and, most recently, a Harvard-based group has been reappraising the case for CBA.

OBJECTIVES

This article seeks to answer the question: would the use of cost-benefit analysis rather than the more usual cost-effectiveness analysis be an improvement, specifically in appraising health and health-related investments in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) as they transition to Universal Health Coverage?.

METHODS/RESULTS

A selective literature review charts the welfare economics (welfarism and extra-welfarism) roots of both approaches. The principal distinguishing feature of the two is the monetary valuation of health outcomes under CBA compared with the use of health constructs such as the Quality-Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) or Disability-Adjusted Life-Year (DALY) under CEA. The former enables direct comparison of the outcomes of health investments with the monetized outcomes of other investments, while the CEA approach facilitates direct comparisons with other health investments. Seven challenges in using CBA in developing countries arise, including ethical issues in outcome valuation, practical challenges in the acquisition of data, intrinsic bias in data on values, and some of the practical issues of implementation for either CBA or CEA.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude with a list of nine issues that both CBA and CEA need to settle if they are to be useful in LMICs. For the immediate future we judge CBA to be the less practicable.

Ethical Considerations for Global Health Decision-Making: Justice-Enhanced Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New Technologies for Trypanosoma brucei gambiense

We sought to assess formally the extent to which different control and elimination strategies for human African trypanosomiasis Trypanosoma brucei gambiense (Gambiense HAT) would exacerbate or alleviate experiences of societal disadvantage that traditional economic evaluation does not take into account. Justice-enhanced cost-effectiveness analysis (JE-CEA) is a normative approach under development to address social justice considerations in public health decision-making alongside other types of analyses. It aims to assess how public health interventions under analysis in comparative evaluation would be expected to influence the clustering of disadvantage across three core dimensions of well-being: agency, association and respect. As a case study to test the approach, we applied it to five strategies for Gambiense HAT control and elimination, in combination with two different other evaluations: a cost-effectiveness analysis and a probability of elimination analysis. We have demonstrated how JE-CEA highlights the ethical importance of adverse social justice impacts of otherwise attractive options and how it indicates specific modifications to policy options to mitigate such impacts. JE-CEA holds promise as an approach to help decision makers and other stakeholders consider social justice more fully, explicitly and systematically in evaluating public health programs.

Model Comparisons of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Vaccination: A Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVES

To describe all published articles that have conducted comparisons of model-based effectiveness and cost-effectiveness results in the field of vaccination. Specific objectives were to 1) describe the methodologies used and 2) identify the strengths and limitations of the studies.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase databases for studies that compared predictions of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaccination of two or more mathematical models. We categorized studies into two groups on the basis of their data source for comparison (previously published results or new simulation results) and performed a qualitative synthesis of study conclusions.

RESULTS

We identified 115 eligible articles (only 5% generated new simulations from the reviewed models) examining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of vaccination against 14 pathogens (69% of studies examined human papillomavirus, influenza, and/or pneumococcal vaccines). The goal of most of studies was to summarize evidence for vaccination policy decisions, and cost-effectiveness was the most frequent outcome examined. Only 33%, 25%, and 3% of studies followed a systematic approach to identify eligible studies, assessed the quality of studies, and performed a quantitative synthesis of results, respectively. A greater proportion of model comparisons using published studies followed a systematic approach to identify eligible studies and to assess their quality, whereas more studies using new simulations performed quantitative synthesis of results and identified drivers of model conclusions. Most comparative modeling studies concluded that vaccination was cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the variability in methods used to conduct/report comparative modeling studies, guidelines are required to enhance their quality and transparency and to provide better tools for decision making.

Cost-benefit analysis of vaccination: a comparative analysis of eight approaches for valuing changes to mortality and morbidity risks

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in estimating the broader benefits of public health interventions beyond those captured in traditional cost-utility analyses. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in principle offers a way to capture such benefits, but a wide variety of methods have been used to monetise benefits in CBAs.

METHODS

To understand the implications of different CBA approaches for capturing and monetising benefits and their potential impact on public health decision-making, we conducted a CBA of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in the United Kingdom using eight methods for monetising health and economic benefits, valuing productivity loss using either (1) the human capital or (2) the friction cost method, including the value of unpaid work in (3) human capital or (4) friction cost approaches, (5) adjusting for hard-to-fill vacancies in the labour market, (6) using the value of a statistical life, (7) monetising quality-adjusted life years and (8) including both productivity losses and monetised quality-adjusted life years. A previously described transmission dynamic model was used to project the impact of vaccination on cervical cancer outcomes. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to capture uncertainty in epidemiologic and economic parameters.

RESULTS

Total benefits of vaccination varied by more than 20-fold (£0.6-12.4 billion) across the approaches. The threshold vaccine cost (maximum vaccine cost at which HPV vaccination has a benefit-to-cost ratio above one) ranged from £69 (95% CI £56-£84) to £1417 (£1291-£1541).

CONCLUSIONS

Applying different approaches to monetise benefits in CBA can lead to widely varying outcomes on public health interventions such as vaccination. Use of CBA to inform priority setting in public health will require greater convergence around appropriate methodology to achieve consistency and comparability across different studies.

Disparities in model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of tuberculosis diagnosis: A systematic review

Background

Structural approach disparities were minimally addressed in past systematic reviews of model-based cost-effectiveness analyses addressing Tuberculosis management strategies. This review aimed to identify the structural approach disparities in model-based cost-effectiveness analysis studies addressing Tuberculosis diagnosis and describe potential hazards caused by those disparities.

Methods

A systematic search to identify studies published before October 2015 was performed in five electronic databases. After removal of duplication, studies’ titles and abstracts were screened based on predetermined criteria. The full texts of potentially relevant studies were subsequently screened and excluded when they did not address active pulmonary Tuberculosis diagnosis. Quality of the studies was assessed using the “Philips’ checklist.” Various data regarding general information, cost-effectiveness results, and disease modeling were extracted using standardized data extraction forms. Data pertaining to models’ structural approaches were compared and analyzed qualitatively for their applicability in various study settings, as well as their potential influence on main outcomes and cost-effectiveness conclusion.

Results

A total of 27 studies were included in the review. Most studies utilized a static model, which could underestimate the cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic tools strategies, due to the omission of indirect diagnosis effects, i.e. transmission reduction. A few structural assumption disparities were found in the dynamic models. Extensive disparities were found in the static models, consisting of varying structural assumptions regarding treatment outcomes, clinical diagnosis and empirical treatment, inpatient discharge decision, and re-diagnosis of false negative patients.

Conclusion

In cost-effectiveness analysis studies addressing active pulmonary Tuberculosis diagnosis, models showed numerous disparities in their structural approaches. Several structural approaches could be inapplicable in certain settings. Furthermore, they could contribute to under- or overestimation of the cost-effectiveness of the diagnosis tools or strategies. They could thus lead to ambiguities and difficulties when interpreting a study result. A set of recommendations is proposed to manage issues related to these structural disparities.

Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures

Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics, including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also compared the number of published CEAs to disease burden for major diseases and conditions across geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies most often examined pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found that while diseases imposing a larger burden tend to receive more attention in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature, the number of publications for some diseases and conditions deviates from this pattern, suggesting "under-studied" conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) and "over-studied" conditions (e.g., HIV and TB). Conclusions: The CEA literature has grown rapidly, with applications to diverse interventions and diseases.  The publication of fewer studies than expected for some diseases given their imposed burden suggests funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.

Comparing the cost-per-QALYs gained and cost-per-DALYs averted literatures

Background: We examined the similarities and differences between studies using two common metrics used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Methods: We used the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry, which contains English-language cost-per-QALY gained studies, and the Global Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (GHCEA) Registry, which contains cost-per-DALY averted studies. We examined study characteristics, including intervention type, sponsor, country, and primary disease, and also compared the number of published CEAs to disease burden for major diseases and conditions across geographic regions. Results: We identified 6,438 cost-per-QALY and 543 cost-per-DALY studies published through 2016 and observed rapid growth for both literatures. Cost-per-QALY studies most often examined pharmaceuticals and interventions in high-income countries. Cost-per-DALY studies predominantly focused on infectious disease interventions and interventions in low and lower-middle income countries. We found that while diseases imposing a larger burden tend to receive more attention in the cost-effectiveness analysis literature, the number of publications for some diseases and conditions deviates from this pattern, suggesting "under-studied" conditions (e.g., neonatal disorders) and "over-studied" conditions (e.g., HIV and TB). Conclusions: The CEA literature has grown rapidly, with applications to diverse interventions and diseases.  The publication of fewer studies than expected for some diseases given their imposed burden suggests funding opportunities for future cost-effectiveness research.

Malaria and Economic Evaluation Methods: Challenges and Opportunities

There is a growing evidence base on the cost effectiveness of malaria interventions. However, certain characteristics of malaria decision problems present a challenge to the application of healthcare economic evaluation methods. This paper identifies five such challenges. The complexities of (i) declining incidence and cost effectiveness in the context of an elimination campaign; (ii) international aid and its effect on resource constraints; and (iii) supranational priority setting, all affect how health economists might use a cost-effectiveness threshold. Consensus and guidance on how to determine and interpret cost-effectiveness thresholds in the context of internationally financed elimination campaigns is greatly needed. (iv) Malaria interventions are often complimentary and evaluations may need to construct intervention bundles to represent relevant policy positions as sets of mutually exclusive alternatives. (v) Geographic targeting is a key aspect of malaria policy making that is only beginning to be addressed in economic evaluations. An approach to budget-based geographic resource allocation is described in an accompanying paper in this issue and addresses some of these methodological challenges.

The International Decision Support Initiative Reference Case for Economic Evaluation: An Aid to Thought

BACKGROUND

Policymakers in high-, low-, and middle-income countries alike face challenging choices about resource allocation in health. Economic evaluation can be useful in providing decision makers with the best evidence of the anticipated benefits of new investments, as well as their expected opportunity costs-the benefits forgone of the options not chosen. To guide the decisions of health systems effectively, it is important that the methods of economic evaluation are founded on clear principles, are applied systematically, and are appropriate to the decision problems they seek to inform.

METHODS

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major funder of economic evaluations of health technologies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), commissioned a "reference case" through the International Decision Support Initiative (iDSI) to guide future evaluations, and improve both the consistency and usefulness to decision makers.

RESULTS

The iDSI Reference Case draws on previous insights from the World Health Organization, the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health Care, and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Comprising 11 key principles, each accompanied by methodological specifications and reporting standards, the iDSI Reference Case also serves as a means of identifying priorities for methods research, and can be used as a framework for capacity building and technical assistance in LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

The iDSI Reference Case is an aid to thought, not a substitute for it, and should not be followed slavishly without regard to context, culture, or history. This article presents the iDSI Reference Case and discusses the rationale, approach, components, and application in LMICs.

Lessons Learned From Developing an Eradication Investment Case for Lymphatic Filariasis

In the last few years, the concepts of disease elimination and eradication have again gained consideration from the global health community, with Guinea worm disease (dracunculiasis) on track to become the first parasitic disease to be eradicated. Given the many complex and interlinking issues involved in committing to a disease eradication initiative, such commitments must be based on a solid assessment of a broad range of factors. In this chapter, we discuss the value and implications of undertaking a systematic and fact-based analysis of the overall situation prior to embarking on an elimination or eradication programme. As an example, we draw upon insights gained from a series of lymphatic filariasis (LF) studies from our research group that adopted an eradication investment case (EIC) framework. The justification for EICs, and related epidemiological, geospatial and other mathematical/operational research modelling, stems from the necessity for proper planning prior to committing to disease eradication. Across all considerations for LF eradication, including: time, treatments, level of investments necessary, health impact, cost-effectiveness, and broader economic benefits, scaling-up mass drug administration coverage to all endemic communities immediately provided the most favourable results. The coherent and consistent pursuit of eradication goals, operationally tailored to a given socioecological system and based on integrated measures of available tools will lead relatively rapidly to elimination in many parts of endemic areas and provide the cornerstone towards eradication.

Modelling the health impact and cost-effectiveness of lymphatic filariasis eradication under varying levels of mass drug administration scale-up and geographic coverage

BACKGROUND

A global programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis (GPELF) is underway, yet two key programmatic features are currently still lacking: (1) the extension of efforts to all lymphatic filariasis (LF) endemic countries, and (2) the expansion of geographic coverage of mass drug administration (MDA) within countries. For varying levels of scale-up of MDA, we assessed the health benefits and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) associated with LF eradication, projected the potential savings due to decreased morbidity management needs, and estimated potential household productivity gains as a result of reduced LF-related morbidity.

METHODS

We extended an LF transmission model to track hydrocele and lymphoedema incidence in order to obtain estimates of the disability adjusted life years (DALYs) averted due to scaling up MDA over a period of 50 years. We then estimated the ICERs and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves associated with different rates of MDA scale-up. Health systems savings were estimated by considering the averted morbidity, treatment-seeking behaviour and morbidity management costs. Gains in worker productivity were estimated by multiplying estimated working days lost as a result of morbidity with country-specific per-worker agricultural wages.

RESULTS

Our projections indicate that a massive scaling-up of MDA could lead to 4.38 million incremental DALYs averted over a 50-year time horizon compared to a scenario which mirrors current efforts against LF. In comparison to maintaining the current rate of progress against LF, massive scaling-up of MDA-pursuing LF eradication as soon as possible-was most likely to be cost-effective above a willingness to pay threshold of US$71.5/DALY averted. Intensified MDA scale-up was also associated with lower ICERs. Furthermore, this could result in health systems savings up to US$483 million. Extending coverage to all endemic areas could generate additional economic benefits through gains in worker productivity between US$3.4 and US$14.4 billion.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to ethical and political motivations for scaling-up MDA rapidly, this analysis provides economic support for increasing the intensity of MDA programmes.

Comparison of Economic Evaluation Methods Across Low-income, Middle-income and High-income Countries: What are the Differences and Why?

There are marked differences in methods used for undertaking economic evaluations across low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries. We outline the most apparent dissimilarities and reflect on their underlying reasons. We randomly sampled 50 studies from each of three country income groups from a comprehensive database of 2844 economic evaluations published between January 2012 and May 2014. Data were extracted on ten methodological areas: (i) availability of guidelines; (ii) research questions; (iii) perspective; (iv) cost data collection methods; (v) cost data analysis; (vi) outcome measures; (vii) modelling techniques; (viii) cost-effectiveness thresholds; (ix) uncertainty analysis; and (x) applicability. Comparisons were made across income groups and odds ratios calculated. Contextual heterogeneity rightly drives some of the differences identified. Other differences appear less warranted and may be attributed to variation in government health sector capacity, in health economics research capacity and in expectations of funders, journals and peer reviewers. By highlighting these differences, we seek to start a debate about the underlying reasons why they have occurred and to what extent the differences are conducive for methodological advancements. We suggest a number of specific areas in which researchers working in countries of differing environments could learn from one another.

Be rich or don't be sick: estimating Vietnamese patients' risk of falling into destitution

This paper represents the first research attempt to estimate the probabilities of Vietnamese patients falling into destitution due to financial burdens occurring during a curative hospital stay. The study models risk against such factors as level of insurance coverage, residency status of patient, and cost of treatment, among others. The results show that very high probabilities of destitution, approximately 70 %, apply to a large group of patients, who are non-residents, poor and ineligible for significant insurance coverage. There is also a probability of 58 % that seriously ill low-income patients who face higher health care costs would quit their treatment. These facts put the Vietnamese government’s ambitious plan of increasing both universal coverage (UC) to 100 % of expenditure and the rate of UC beneficiaries to 100 %, to a serious test. The current study also raises issues of asymmetric information and alternative financing options for the poor, who are most exposed to risk of destitution following market-based health care reforms.